far removed from them yet their minds should be at rest because he had already invested St. Peter with a Paternal Authority or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over them when he promised to him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but since in our Saviour's reproof we find no such Insinuation may it not be pertinently doubted if ever he meant any such matter 11. I would demand how the ensuing particulars can be reconciled to a formal Jurisdiction of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles 1. The Care of all the Churches being committed to every one of them in solidum 2. St. Peter was sent by the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem to Samaria he that gave the Commission having rather the Authority than the Person commissionated 3. His being called to an account for conversing with Cornelius the Centurion in Caesaria and other Gentiles by those at Hierusalem velut vehementur infensi as S. Chrysostom phraseth it 4. If St. Peter was then Supreme Governour wherefore did not the controverting Christians at Antioch address first to him in order to the indicting of a Council 5. Wherefore did St. Iames preside therein and by his Verdict determine the Controversie if we believe Eusebius and Epiphanius and not St. Peter on which account and because he was the first Bishop of Hierusalem and of the Christian World Epiphanius positively asserts that St. Iames was invested by our Saviour with a Superiority over all the Apostles 6. Wherefore was not that Decree issued forth in the Name of Peter if he was the Monarch of the Church 7. Why was St. Paul so immethodical to reckon Iames before Cephas or Peter and so arrogant as to say that he was in nothing inferiour to the chiefest Apostles for if St. Peter was his Superiour he came short of him in something which is very material and that is Authority 8. Was not St. Paul a very unmannerly Vassal to rebuke his Lord and Master for Judaizing and so solemnly that both Jews and Gentiles were witness to the Reproof 9. How could St. Cyprian say that the rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Finally How could Eusebius aver in his Old Editions before they suffered the Index Expurgatorius that Peter Iames and Iohn were appointed Princes of the Apostles and that these three were equal 12. Since P. Leo the Tenth with the consent and approbation of the Lateran Council which they account General declares that our Blessed Saviour did institute St. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See his Vicars to whom by the Testimony of the Book of Kings it was so necessary to yield Obedience that whosoever would not was punished with Death thus Binius Concil Tom. 9. it may be pertinently demanded if they have Five Books of the Kings for in the Vulgar Version which have four of that Name there is not any Syllable which insinuates any such matter 13. If the Bishop of Rome was invested Iure Divino with an universal Jurisdiction over the Catholick Church or if the Roman Church either in its Head or Members severally or in all conjunctly be indued with an infallible Spirit how comes it to pass that all the antient Apologists were guilty of such a Supine Negligence from Iustin Martyr the first of them who lived Anno 150. to Theodoret inclusively who dyed about the middle of the Fifth Century as never to mention that most admirable Prerogative of the Roman Church above all the Societies in the World since some of them descend to many minute Particulars which are long ago obsolete and out of date in all the Churches of Christ 14. If it be a sufficient Answer for the Silence of the Apologists to say that they are so succinct that they had no room for such a matter For though it is easily granted that of Asianus Melito Quadratus and Aristides we have but Shreds in Eusebius and that Athenagoras Tatian Theophilus Antiochenus Minutius Foelix Cyprian ad Demetrianum I. Firmicus Maternus are very brief not to speak of many Orations written by the Fathers against Iulian the Apostate the Jews and Gentiles in general which are also reckoned among the Apologists and are yet briefer yet the two Apologies of Iustin Martyr with his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew all the Works of Clem. Alexandrinus save his Paedagogus the larger Apologetick of Tertullian with his lesser ad Scapulam and some Books against the Jews and Gentiles the eight Books of Origen against Celsus the seven Books of Arnobius contra Gentes and so many of Lactantius his Institutions Eusebius de demonstratione praeparatione Evangelica S. Augustin his 22 Books de Civitate Dei Theodoret his 12 Books de curandis Graecorum affectibus all these are pretty Voluminous yet ne gru quidem not the least word or insinuation of any such prodigious privilegeof the Roman Church either in its Head or Members 15. What greater Elogy could have been given by any of the Fathers to S. Peter than that which S. Chrysostom applies to S. Paul that he was the Light of all the Churches the Foundation of the Faith the Pillar and Ground of Truth 16. Might not the Bishop of Antioch have claimed by virtue of Succession a Superiority over all the Organical Members of the Catholick Church as well as the Bishop of Rome since it is certain S. Peter resided seven years at Antioch and it cannot be proved from any Authentick Record that he was one year at Rome 17. May not the Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of us all with better reason claim an universal Monarchy over the Church by virtue of Succession since the unquestionable Head of the Church dyed there And S. Iames the Lord's Brother was unquestionably the first Bishop of the Christian World whence Epiphanius concludes that the Principality over the Church was due to him and not to St. Peter 18. Since it s granted by Bellarmin and others that St. Peter's Martyrdom at Rome was but accidental there being no Scripture Promise or Catholick Tradition for it can the Bishop of Rome by virtue of his See pretend to S. Peter's Spirit and Power upon better grounds than Vibius Rufus did to the Genius of the Great Caesar because he bought his Chair 19. Could any of the Fathers have Complemented the Bishop of Rome with an higher Hyperbole than Synesius the Bishop of Cyrene did his Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria none of the best of men for he was a great Persecutor of S. Chrysostom by calling his Advice a Divine Response and an Heavenly Oracle 20. Can any Instance be given of any Bishop of Rome who before the famous Council of Nice presumed to exercise any proper Act of Jurisdiction without the proper Bounds of his own Patriarchat called the Suburbicarian Churches except P. Victor who for attempting to Censure others without his own Precinct was severely reprehended by Irenaeus and P. Stephen who was justly censured by
the Apostrophe of Greg. Nazianz. to his Sister Gorgonia or S. Ierom to his devout Paula and S. Augustin to his Mother Monica than in these Apostrophes frequently found in Sacred Writings to insensate Creatures Hear O ye Mountains the Lord's Controversie Praise the Lord ye Dragons and all Deeps c. And who will infer from hence that the insensate Creatures were hereby invok'd and addressed unto yet we must carefully distinguish betwixt the Speeches of some particular Fathers and the general Doctrine of the Church betwixt what they express in Rhetorical Strains to move Affection and what they lay down in plain terms to inform the Judgment betwixt what results from the heat of their popular Orations and what in cool and deliberate Debates they set down for the Truth of Christ for its generally confest that the Fathers oft-times hyperbolize particularly St. Chrysostom and we must not take their flights of Fancy for the Doctrine of the Church 5. If these words Matth. 4. 10. taken out of Deut. 6. 13. Him only shalt thou serve are to be understood only of the highest degree of Religious Worship as a part of the whole and distinguish'd from a lower kind this superiour degree being Latria and the inferiour degrees Hyperdulia and Dulia as the Romanists term them it may be demanded how could that have been a sufficient Answer to the Devils demand for he might thus have replyed to the Son of God I acknowledge the Soveraign and Almighty Power of God as well as you the same acknowledgment being insinuated by himself St. Luke chap. 4. 6. therefore I desire not thou shouldst Worship me as God with Latria but only with Dulia a lower kind thy Heart the most elevated conceptions of thy mind may be reserved to God it s only the outward act I challenge of thee that thou wouldst only fall down and Worship me or by falling down Worship me which our Saviour simply refused notwithstanding 6. Since the chief argument whereby the Primitive Fathers used to prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and of the Son against the Macedonians and Arians was the Catholick practice of the Church in praying to them what force could have been in that argument had they believed that any Creatures tho never so highly exalted in Nature and Condition might have had that Honour payed unto them 7. Since the Catholicks did frequently accuse the Arians of Idolatry for praying unto Christ whom they conceived to be no more than an excellent and good-like Creature had the Catholicks at the same time practised the Invocation of Saints might not the Arians have returned the Charge with greater force upon themselves for if the Catholicks had replyed as the Romanists do now that though they did pray to the blessed Spirits yet they did it not with that Sovereign Direct and final Prayer nor with those sublimest thoughts and intentions of Honour wherewith they did address to God but only with indirect subaltern and relative Prayer and with no higher Intentions of Honour to them than what is proportioned to the excellencies of their finite Nature Since the Arians might have returned upon them with great advantage by saying Sirs With the same due Limitations we Invocate the Man Iesus Christ who as the Scripture assures us is exalted above all Angels Principalities and Powers and every Name which is named in Heaven and Earth so that tho we may not Honour the Son in the same high degree as we do the Father yet the Scripture enjoyns us to do it with that same kind of Honour Which is more than can be said in defence of that Honour and Invocation you offer to Saints and Angels 8. Since the fancy of making the Court of Heaven resemble Princes Courts on Earth hath brought forth that voluntary Humility of Worshiping Saints and Angels at least this excuse of the Romish Supplicants that it s out of an humble sense of their own unworthiness and an awful regard to the infinite Majesty of God that they address not immediately to himself but by the Mediation of Saints and Angels these Courtiers and Favourites of Heaven may it not be pertinently demanded What wise Man on Earth who is abundantly satisfied of the readiness and ability of his Prince to help him and hath free leave given him on any occasion to come immediately unto him and is frequently invited for that effect will choose to wave this freedom of his access and will apply himself to some inferiour Officer or Favourite to make his Address This is our case God hath invited all that are in Trouble to come immediately unto himself and hath frequently promised to grant all their requests who seek him with their whole Hearts and hath appointed his own Son God with himself the Master of Requests from time to time to receive all the Petitions of his Subjects and both the one and the other are infinitely more able and infinitely more willing to Hear and Succour them than the best the wisest and most powerful of all created Beings And shall we now be afraid to take that Liberty which God hath given us Shall we call that Impudence which God hath made our Duty And whilst we pretend Humility shall we forfeit our Allegiance and distrust his Promises and suspect the goodness of his Nature for fear of being found too faucy and too bold with his Person 9. Since Deut. 13. we are expresly forbidden to hearken to any Prophet tho a Worker of Miracles who teacheth the Worship of any other Being beside the one Supreme God may it not pertinently be demanded if Christ and his Apostles had taught the Worship of Saints and Angels had it not been a just Reason for the Unbelief of the Iews notwithstanding of all the Miracles wrought by them 10. If Ten thousand Miracles should convince a Christian of the Lawfulness of Praying to Saints departed whilst he hath such a plain express Law against believing all Miracles upon any such account For if ever real Miracles were wrought at the Tombs of Martyrs it was in Testimony of the Truth of Christianity for which they suffered not to betray any to a Superstitious or Idolatrous Worship of them tho there is most forcible reason to doubt of many of those pretended Miracles if ever they were in rerum natura and to fear that many of them were but Satanical Illusions 11. Can there be a solid Reason assigned why Sacrifice as well as Prayer may not be an Act of inferiour as well as superiour Worship since the Heathens offered Sacrifice to their Inferiour Demons as well as to the Supreme 12. Since the Roman Doctors grant that the difference betwixt Supreme and Subordinate Worship doth not consist in the outward Act and that all the outward Acts may belong to both kinds Sacrifice only excepted by them which the Spirit of God notwithstanding makes inferiour to Prayer now it may be demanded since the Law did forbid the external acts of Worship without any
regard to the Intention of the Worshipper doth it not appear from this that this Idolatrous Worship was to be punished with Death Deut. 13 and therefore it must be such external Idolatry as falls under the Recognizance of Humane Judicatures which Intention doth not unless a Man had confessed his Intention 13. When can it be shewn that those Fathers whose Authority is urged by the Church of Rome for the Invocation of Saints do dogmatieally and positively assert the Lawfulness of Praying to Saints and Angels since many Fathers of the same Age do positively deny the Lawfulness of it is it not a plain Argument that it was not the Judgment and Practice of the Church and a good reasonable Presumption that these Fathers in their Apostrophes and Prosopopeia's never intended any such thing in what they said how lyable soever their Words may be to be expounded in such a sense 14. May it not easily be imagin'd wherefore the late Latin Editions in the Church of Rome of the 35th Canon of the Council of Laodicea instead of its prohibiting the Faithful to call on the Name of Angels have put in Angulos corners contrary to all the Greek Copies and Fathers that writ them and so have made nonsense of that excellent Canon but veritas non quaerit Angulos And the mischief of these Prevaricators is that there is no resemblance in the Greek which is the Original Language of the Canon betwixt the words which signifie Angels and Angles SECT VI. The Doctrin of Merit Qu. 1. IF the Doctrine of Merit of good Works as it is taught in the Roman Church by an Analogy or due proportion betwixt the Work and the Reward as if God were unjust if he gave it not but not as it imports a Reward Virtute promissi Divini as the Fathers teach be not perfect nonsense in Divinity Since our Saviour hath expresly said When we have done all that we can do we are but unprofitable Servants we have done nothing but what was our Duty and the Apostle hath told us That the light Afflictions of this Life are not worthy to be compared with that great measure of Glory which shall be revealed besides that other consideration that all we are and have of any goodness are graciously derived from that inexhaustible Fountain so that neither Men nor Angels can properly Merit at the hands of God. 2. Since the Popes pretend that they have thrown into the Treasure of the Church the Superplus of the Merits of some eminent Saints may it not be pertinently doubted if they believe the Foundation of that Treasure I mean the merits of Holy Jesus to be infinit seeing what is really infinit can neither admit of Addition or Diminution at least needs no Addition SECT VII Of Purgatory Qu. 1. IF the Pope hath Power to take all Souls out of that imaginary Purgatory how comes it that he is so unmerciful as not to rid many thousands of Poor Ones from those Flames which are intensively no better than the torments of Hell is it because those tormented Wretches have not Heirs and Executors behind them with Purses so flush as those of the Rich 2. Is it possible to find an account of Indulgences in the Primitive Times in any other sense than that of relaxation of Penances inflicted upon scandalous Persons by the Governours of the Church 3. Since the most Primitive Fathers by a purging Fire for Sinners do generally understand the Fire of Conflagration in the last Day with what face can it be pretended that they believed the Romish Purgatory where poor Creatures suffer the Torments of Hell for a time 4. Since the Greek Church never believed the Roman Purgatory how can it be said with any colour of Truth that it is a Catholick Tradition of the Universal Church seeing the extent of the Greek Church is nothing inferiour to that of the Roman The same Question may be proposed concerning the Pope's Supremacy the Mutilation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Service in an unknown Tongue the Celibacy of the Clergy and many other particulars in Controversie at this time 5. If we were to understand 1 Cor. 3. of Purgatory I would demand of those Glossators how they reconcile the Doctrine of their Prophets and Apostles Confessours and Martyrs the Blessed Virgin with the Thief on the Cross that they went immediately to Heaven or Paradice at least since the Apostle tells us there that every man's Work must be tryed by Fire of what sort it is which note of Universality in the Eyes of a Puny Logician comprehends the whole Race of Adam 6. With what Confidence can the Roman Church boast of Antiquity in Behalf of Purgatory or Indulgences seeing it is not able to produce any one Prayer publick or private nor one Indulgence for the Delivery of any Soul out of Purgatory in all the Primitive times or out of their own ancient Missals or Records SECT VIII Their Seven Sacraments Quest. SInce before Peter Lombard's time the number of Sacraments was indefinit in the Church of Rome it self if so be they have gathered the number of Seven from the Fathers Writings as they pretend for I am sure in Scripture they find them not it may be pertinently demanded wherefore not seventy seven seeing the Fathers call many other things Sacraments yea if that general Rule assigned by St. Augustin be observed in the Computation viz. that all Signs when they belong to Divine things are called Sacraments they would be found no ways short of the greatest number SECT IX The Priest's Intention in Baptism Quest. WHat can in reason be answered to that objection of the Bishop of Minori in the Council of Trent who said that if they should ratifie as afterwards they most unhappily did the Decree of the Florintin Council concerning the necessity of a right Intention of the Priest in the Administration of Sacraments especially of Baptism it would evidently follow that it were in the Power of one single Priest who came to be old in Wickedness to damn his whole Parish Yea suppose that Hellish Paroxism did but once overtake him that Child not rightly Baptized by him might afterwards become a Bishop so that not only his own Ordination but also all the Orders conferred by him would become invalid which might occasion a world of Mischief SECT X. The Limbo of Vnbaptized Infants Quest. SInce many Infants are still-born and some dye in their Mothers Womb all which because unbaptized must go to that Limbo of Infants according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church where they are for ever to be deprived of the beatifical Vision which is the greatest of the Plagues of the Damned Poena Damni being in the Opinion of the School-men and Fathers much greater than Poena Sensus how can that rigid Opinion be reconciled to the infinit Goodness and Wisdom of God to appoint a means indispensably necessary to Salvation which in some circumstances cannot possibly be administred and may not
those cruel Opiniators be justly termed Step-fathers of Infants as St. Augustin was named Durus Pater Infantum SECT XI Of Transubstantiation Qu. 1. SInce the most eminent of the Roman School-men such as Scotus Durandus Alphonsus a Castro Suarez Vasquez Alliado Biel Canus Occam Cajetan and Bellarmine himself confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantion cannot be evidently proved from Scripture and that there is no absolute necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in that Sense may it not be pertinently demanded is there not a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise seeing that strange Sense is so directly repugnant to the Senses of all that are endued with an animal Life 2. Since there be so many parallel places in Scripture which every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal and absurd Sense as where the Lamb is called the Passover Circumcision God's Covenant the Church Christ's Body the Rock which followed the Israelites called Christ Christ calls himself the Door the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumphed in if he had said this is my true Body wherefore may we not also understand these Words This is my Body in a Metaphorical Sense especially considering that it is impossible to make Sense of the whole Words of the Institution without more Figures than one 3. Can it rationally be presumed that any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded on these Words This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Eucharist ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in these words but rather that this Bread signifies my Body and this Cup my Blood and this which ye see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me Far less would it have entred into any Mans Mind not blinded with gross Error or Prejudice to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his Hand and did eat himself and that he gave away himself from himself with his own Hands especially if it be further considered that our Saviour having pronounced these words This is my Body which is broken and my Blood which is shed before his Passion this could not be true in a literal Sense for his Body was then unbroken and his Blood unshed unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered Nor could the Apostles understand these words literally since they both saw and tasted what he gave them to be Bread and Wine and that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given Whence any rational Man may infer that St. Augustin's Phrase in his Enarrations on the Psalms Christus portavit se manibus suis is to be understood figuratively according to his own Rule for interpreting Scripture given Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. 4. May not the Church of Rome as well conclude from 1 Cor. 10. 17. that all Christians are substantially changed into one Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by the participation of the Sacrament because they are said to be one Bread and one Body as to infer Transubstantiation from the Verse immediately foregoing or from any other place of Scripture 5. Suppose Iustin Martyr who lived An. 150. Ireneus who lived An. 180. Tertullian who lived An. 206. Origen who lived An. 230. St. Cyprian who lived An. 250. Theodoret who lived An. 450. P. Gelasius who also lived in the Fifth Century and Facundus the African Bishop who lived in the Sixth had not written any thing against Transubstantiation as it is simply impossible to make sense of their Writings if they believed that Doctrine and not to speak of many other Testimonies of St. Augustin against Transubstantiation I would demand if any Man in his right Wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered such a Testimony against it as we find lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. already cited where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If says he the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous Crime or commanding us to do good it is not figurative but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or to forbid that which is profitable to others its figurative for Example Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you this seems to command an heinous Wickedness therefore it s a Figure commanding us to Communicate of the Passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us 6. Since Bellarmin in lib. descript Eccles. an 118. tells us that Paschasius Rabertus Abbot of Corbey was the first who did write seriously concerning the Truth of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist it may be demanded very pertinently if any of the Fathers before him wrote in jest concerning such a sublime Mystery 7. Since some of the Fathers have as high Elegies of the Sacrament of Baptism as of the Eucharist notwithstanding the Popish Schoolmen grant there is no substantial Change made in that consecrated Water and yet that the Divine Blessing accompanying the Institution it may be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration what reason can be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divine Blessing accompanying this Institution make all the worthy Receivers Partakers of all the Spiritual Comfort designed to us thereby without any substantial Change made in those Elements since our Saviour hath told us that verily the Flesh profiteth nothing 8. If the Canibals be abhorred as Inhuman for eating the Flesh of their Enemies must it not be great Inhumanity to eat the Flesh of a Friend and the best in the World If none can read without horrour the Stories of Tereus Thyestes and Harpagus their eating of their own Children though ignorantly how much more horrible must it be to feed upon the very Body of the Son of God that was Born of the Virgin knowingly Deum suum primo conficiunt deinde devorant said Averrhoes justly deriding that prodigious Doctrine which a little before his time began to be publickly taught in the Roman Church and with what Face could the Primitive Apologists upbraid the Heathen with one of their Gods who did eat his own Children if the Christians had believed at that time that they did Eat their own God and that no such thing being then objected by the Pagans to the Christians is to a Wise Man instead of a Thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrine was then believed for the Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing as it is believed and practised in the Roman Church is not in truth extenuated but only the appearance of it by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine for the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe they verily
Reformed Church of England to Romanism again which God forbid where was your Religion before 86 or before such a time Would they not answer at Rome and in England also only kept under and obscured by Hereticks And Christianity though not so visible yet was purer when its Professors dwelt in Mountains and Dens places of Obscurity and Privacy in the Reigns of Nero Decius and Dioclesian than when some Kings were called its Nursing Fathers and took possession of the seven Halls as when it groaned under Arianism in the days of Constantius and Valens 2. When some peremptorily require from us the Aera of all the Popish Errors may it not be as pertinently demanded when the Acephali began which was such a ridiculous Linsy-Wolsey Heresie as to be a Compound of these Contraries Nestorianism and Eutychianism and yet gave great trouble to the Church for many years for Baronius and Bellarmin ingenuously acknowledge that they know neither the Heresiarch or the Epocha of the Heresie nor when Filioque was inserted by the Latin Church into the Creed and if they know not the Aera of their Truths how can it be rationally expected that we should design the precise times when all their Errors began since it s in the Night Season that the Adversary Sows his Tares in the Field of the Church 3. It may be demanded what more pertinency amongst Disputers is in that old Thred-bare Question Where was your Church or Religion before Luther than in this amongst Husbandmen Where was the Corn before it was Weeded For if our Forefathers under the Papacy embraced the true Faith we have it still the Faith not being removed but the Corruption 4. Since the Church of England obligeth none to believe any thing as necessary to Salvation but what is plainly proved from holy Scripture and intirely holds the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and obeys more Canons of the first general Councils than those of Rome do and approves that Exposition of Scripture which hath the consent of the Fathers of the four first Centuries Yea holds all that the Church of Rome held necessary for Salvation for five or six hundred years together so that a Romanist may turn Protestant without adding any Article to his Faith but a Protestant cannot turn Romanist without the addition of many new ones or novel Inventions which have neither Foundation in Scripture nor genuin Antiquity May it not then be most rationally concluded that the Protestant way is the surest and safest because both sides agree therein and that their Church was long before Papacy appeared in the World 5. Since its impossible to produce any genuin Work of any of the Fathers who lived within Four Hundred Years after Christ that positively asserts the practice or the lawfulness of Prayer in an unknown Tongue of taking away the Cup from the People or with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks or Adoring Images or having them in Churches the Pope's Infallibility or Supremacy Indulgences in the Sense of Pope Leo the Tenth the Doctrine of Merit in the Sense of the Council of Trent that there are neither more nor less than Seven Sacraments the necessity of the right Intention of the Priest for the Validity of a Sacrament Transubstantiation the Limbo of unbaptized Infants Private Masses the Popes deposing Power c. may it not more pertinently be demanded of the Romanists Where was Popery before Boniface the Third than they can enquire of the Protestants Where was your Church before Luther 6. Since its impossible to find any of the Primitive Fathers or any Christian Writer a thousand years after Christ and more who believed all the Twelve new Articles of Faith which P. Pius the Fourth hath added to the Apostolick Creed may it not be pertinently demanded of the Romanists Where was your Faith to be found intirely before the Council of Trent And is not the Modern Papacy younger by many years than Martin Luther himself 7. Since not one of the Twelve new Articles of the Creed of P. Pius the Fourth is to be found in any ancient Creed or Confession of Faith generally allowed in the Christian Church whence it is evident that they are Innovations destitute of Primitive Authority may we not more pertinently demand of them Where was Papacy when those Confessions were framed than they can enquire of us Where was your Church before Luther 8. Since every true Reformation necessarily pre-supposeth Corruptions and Errors to have been before it what Advantage can the Romanists have in charging our Reformation with Novelty For if a real Reformation be made the thing justifies it self and a Reformation must begin sometime and when ever it begins it is certainly new Besides it ought to be considered that this Objection of Novelty lyes against all Reformation whatsoever tho never so necessary and tho things be never so much amiss So that tho our Reformation was as late as Luther our Religion is as antient as Christianity it self for when the Additions which the Church of Rome hath made to the antient Christian Faith and their Innovations in Practise are par'd off that which remains of their Religion is ours and this they cannot deny to be every tittle of it the antient Christianity And what other Answer I pray could the Iews have given to the like Question if it had been put to them by the Antient Idolaters of the World Where was your Religion before Abraham or Moses Or what other Answer could the Primitive Christians have given to those Pagans who pretended Venerable Antiquity and Universality for their Polytheisme but the very same in substance which we now give to the Church of Rome And if any be so fond as to brand the Protestant Religion with Novelty because of some negative Articles in opposition to the Corruptions of the Roman Church which by accident are become a part of our Faith occasioned by their Errors they may as well tax the Primitive Church with Novelty because the renouncing of the Doctrines of Arianism at the Council of Nice of Macedonianism at the Council of Constantinople of Nestorianism at Ephesus and of Eutychianism at Calcedon came a part of the Catholick Religion after the rise of those Heresies 9. But to shut up this Point if to Pray without Understanding to obey without Reason and to believe against Sense be the surest Evidences of the Antiquity of a Church then I pray where is that Protestant to be found who is so contentious for Priority as not to yield upon these accounts the Precedency to the Church of Rome above all Christian Societies in the World SECT XIX Of the Infallibility of the Pope with his Councils Qu. 1. IF the Pope or Church of Rome be infallible wherefore are they so uncharitable to the World at least to their own Incorporation as not to give an infallible Comment on Scripture but suffers her Doctors to write as fallible Comments and in many things as contrary to each other as any